Why is 25-29 so dead?

[Jadyne]

That same behavior, the AFK-reporting was existent in the 49 bracket as well. We had entire "pre-mades"(so to speak) reporting select players AFK either due to gear or simply because they didn't like them. Punks who would hop into the Public Vent just to cause trouble and then ruin games by chain-reporting players whom they didn't get along with. It got pretty bad. Some players were being constantly harassed. Poor attitudes making things not so fun.We only had games a couple nights a week, and half of those games were being dictated by poor-sportsmanship.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What a mess. Well, hopefully my 49 project on Molten takes off once Balroy's group finishes their alliance toons. Then I'll be posting screenshots here and telling everyone interested in 49s to come join us. And probably 39s too, since if we can get 49s to happen, we can certainly get 39s to happen too.

 

[Sbdaddy]

What uuuuup Sb, this is Kuntekinte!

O hi

How it be? Miss ya guys. Them was some good times..

 

[Karmaz]

I use the word troll, and in a correct manner, because that's the behavior he exhibited in that entire conversation. "A troll is a person who sows discord on the internet by starting arguments... with the deliberate intent of provoking readers..." Posts like a troll, acts like a troll, must be a troll. If he wasn't, he would've simply had a conversation with me sharing his own opinion. In the same way I shared mine. Instead he initiated conversation with a personal attack calling me "lost". It's black and white.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Your ability to derive meaning and intent with such certainty from text communications is astounding, but on the contrary this form of communication, specifically the examples in this thread, are anything but black and white.

I believe this is one of the key reasons as to why Skanky believes you are as lost as you seem to be.

Apparently a little bit of mudslinging before expressing one's opinion completely nulls any worth of a person as they instantly become labeled as a troll. Yet another reason as to why Skank's and personally myself would be willing to call you lost.

I go into a bit further detail of the statement "you're lost as ----" to hopefully bring some clarity and understanding forward: it is just a statement made due to a general feeling about a person, it's highly contextual and does not always need to be backed up by specific quantifiable reasons. If their were many small reasons it would be dificult to express through text and wouldn't be worth the time to bring up, go into detail and explain these reasons.Sure this sounds like a cop out, and for all I care, you can call it a cop out but I guarantee anyone who has the experience that people such as Skanks or myself would label you the same way.

Many of us have been through the ups and downs of activity in these brackets and have seen the rise and fall of others. We also have seen what certain elements have helped or hurt the communities and have vast experience which are beyond textual explainability.

P.S. Your definition of "Troll" was cut a bit short. It is somewhere along the lines of: Someone who starts an argument to provoke others to respond without actually believing what is being stated. In other words, stating an opinion or thought process that you do not genuinely hold but putting up an act to cause strife.

Although sometimes unnecessary, insulting while explaining one's opinion isn't trolling. Get your head out of your ass.

 

[Cinderella]

Your ability to derive meaning and intent with such certainty from text communications is astounding, but on the contrary this form of communication, specifically the examples in this thread, are anything but black and white.

I believe this is one of the key reasons as to why Skanky believes you are as lost as you seem to be.

Apparently a little bit of mudslinging before expressing one's opinion completely nulls any worth of a person as they instantly become labeled as a troll. Yet another reason as to why Skank's and personally myself would be willing to call you lost.

I go into a bit further detail of the statement "you're lost as ----" to hopefully bring some clarity and understanding forward: it is just a statement made due to a general feeling about a person, it's highly contextual and does not always need to be backed up by specific quantifiable reasons. If their were many small reasons it would be dificult to express through text and wouldn't be worth the time to bring up, go into detail and explain these reasons.Sure this sounds like a cop out, and for all I care, you can call it a cop out but I guarantee anyone who has the experience that people such as Skanks or myself would label you the same way.

Many of us have been through the ups and downs of activity in these brackets and have seen the rise and fall of others. We also have seen what certain elements have helped or hurt the communities and have vast experience which are beyond textual explainability.

P.S. Your definition of "Troll" was cut a bit short. It is somewhere along the lines of: Someone who starts an argument to provoke others to respond without actually believing what is being stated. In other words, stating an opinion or thought process that you do not genuinely hold but putting up an act to cause strife.

Although sometimes unnecessary, insulting while explaining one's opinion isn't trolling. Get your head out of your ass.

You realize no real opinion beyond me being "lost" was shared up until the end of our silly conversation? He didn't even share his thoughts until he'd sat, nit-picking at everything I'd said up until that point. I do not call him a troll because of the first statement he made. I make that call based on his behavior throughout the conversation. Black and white, his first statement comes across as a personal attack because of the conversation that followed. However, had he continued that with an explanation, which I requested of him, or some sort of thought process, it would've been received as a matter of opinion. You cannot simply call someone something or make a statement about what they've said, without backing it up with reasoning. If I were to call you "involved in something that you don't need to be", I would have to follow it by further explaining that the conversation had ended and there was no reason to draw it on any longer. Hint hint!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Cinderella]

Your ability to derive meaning and intent with such certainty from text communications is astounding, but on the contrary this form of communication, specifically the examples in this thread, are anything but black and white.

I believe this is one of the key reasons as to why Skanky believes you are as lost as you seem to be.

Apparently a little bit of mudslinging before expressing one's opinion completely nulls any worth of a person as they instantly become labeled as a troll. Yet another reason as to why Skank's and personally myself would be willing to call you lost.

I go into a bit further detail of the statement "you're lost as ----" to hopefully bring some clarity and understanding forward: it is just a statement made due to a general feeling about a person, it's highly contextual and does not always need to be backed up by specific quantifiable reasons. If their were many small reasons it would be dificult to express through text and wouldn't be worth the time to bring up, go into detail and explain these reasons.Sure this sounds like a cop out, and for all I care, you can call it a cop out but I guarantee anyone who has the experience that people such as Skanks or myself would label you the same way.

Many of us have been through the ups and downs of activity in these brackets and have seen the rise and fall of others. We also have seen what certain elements have helped or hurt the communities and have vast experience which are beyond textual explainability.

P.S. Your definition of "Troll" was cut a bit short. It is somewhere along the lines of: Someone who starts an argument to provoke others to respond without actually believing what is being stated. In other words, stating an opinion or thought process that you do not genuinely hold but putting up an act to cause strife.

Although sometimes unnecessary, insulting while explaining one's opinion isn't trolling. Get your head out of your ass.

Oh, and a comment on your definition of "troll". The word, and it's usage, has evolved far beyond that. Trolling is at it's heart, playful, but goes much further than it did 5 years ago. Similar to how the "n-word" has become a word simply to describe one's companion or friend. A "troll" can be simply defined as I stated; "someone who sows discord". There are plenty of "trolls" who believe what they're saying and just press further into that belief by making as big a deal out of it as possible. They add unnecessary elements and say things they might not normally, just to wreak havoc. There's almost no such thing as excess, or no limitations, in trolling.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Karmaz]

Oh, and a comment on your definition of "troll". The word, and it's usage, has evolved far beyond that. Trolling is at it's heart, playful, but goes much further than it did 5 years ago. Similar to how the "n-word" has become a word simply to describe one's companion or friend. A "troll" can be simply defined as I stated; "someone who sows discord". There are plenty of "trolls" who believe what they're saying and just press further into that belief by making as big a deal out of it as possible. They add unnecessary elements and say things they might not normally, just to wreak havoc. There's almost no such thing as excess, or no limitations, in trolling.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Matter of semantics, but I would be willing to bet the definition I mentioned is more commonly held.

P.S. the "N-word" is highly contextual and still has many negative connotations associated with it. Sure, it can mean friend or buddie, but it can also mean something on the complete opposite of the spectrum and be extremely derogative and/or racist.

I see where you were going with the comparison although quite different.

 

[Cinderella]

Matter of semantics, but I would be willing to bet the definition I mentioned is more commonly held.

P.S. the "N-word" is highly contextual and still has many negative connotations associated with it. Sure, it can mean friend or buddie, but it can also mean something on the complete opposite of the spectrum and be extremely derogative and/or racist.

I see where you were going with the comparison although quite different.

The point is the evolution of words, especially terminology used to refer to someone, or something, specific.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[soskanky]

The point is the evolution of words, especially terminology used to refer to someone, or something, specific.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm pretty sure you are a bigot

Sent from my LGMS769 using Tapatalk

 

[Domperignon]

How it be? Miss ya guys. Them was some good times..

is this really sb?

 

[Ohai]

This Cinderella guy really doesn't get it.

Post 3.2 were literally just the best games I've ever played in 29s, when Reckoning got all the rerolls and transfers. There were pops day and night, and the most talented players (that were still playing) were pretty much all there.

Speaking specifically of 29s, the quality dropped off as people lost interest, and the game stagnated. The bracket came back quite a few times, each a little less than the last. I honestly think that veterans coming back in groups was a contributing factor to the decline... Outstanding players playing in a stack made the other side only want outstanding players to try to face them. Basically everyone else got AFK'd out and that was that.

I can't say resilience or hunters had shit to do with anything. Queue times had nothing to do with it either. Pre XP-off, you could get instant queues, but the quality of games was for the most part horrible. We organized games in the year following transfers for wide amounts of hours across 2-4 nights a week. They were not "hard to get" at all.

Players who wanted fast queue times so they could ----stomp pub idiots went and played 24s and got to queue in against little undergeared 20s, from what I understand.

They made it difficult to get games and then made those games less enjoyable.

I think that's the main statement you made, that people would call you lost for. Players who transferred, and played for the ~6m to 1y that xp-off twinking was at it's best, know that just isn't true.

 

[Sbdaddy]

is this really sb?

<3Dom

 

[Domperignon]

<3Dom

<3 glad to see that you're okay. you just vanished one day and tmaster said you had irl issues, it had me worried. how have you been man? are you going to play again? if you do, add me on btag domperignon#1147.

 

[Cinderella]

This Cinderella guy really doesn't get it.

Post 3.2 were literally just the best games I've ever played in 29s, when Reckoning got all the rerolls and transfers. There were pops day and night, and the most talented players (that were still playing) were pretty much all there.

Speaking specifically of 29s, the quality dropped off as people lost interest, and the game stagnated. The bracket came back quite a few times, each a little less than the last. I honestly think that veterans coming back in groups was a contributing factor to the decline... Outstanding players playing in a stack made the other side only want outstanding players to try to face them. Basically everyone else got AFK'd out and that was that.

I can't say resilience or hunters had shit to do with anything. Queue times had nothing to do with it either. Pre XP-off, you could get instant queues, but the quality of games was for the most part horrible. We organized games in the year following transfers for wide amounts of hours across 2-4 nights a week. They were not "hard to get" at all.

Players who wanted fast queue times so they could ----stomp pub idiots went and played 24s and got to queue in against little undergeared 20s, from what I understand.



I think that's the main statement you made, that people would call you lost for. Players who transferred, and played for the ~6m to 1y that xp-off twinking was at it's best, know that just isn't true.

Just so we're clear, not once have I said that the games immediately lost value or even when the brackets began to die out. I never provided a time-frame. So, you've kind of interpreted that on your own. The OP asked why they are currently dead, not about the months following 3.2. Today, they are pretty dead. I offered reasons and an opinion based on today's status of the fore mentioned brackets. Personal opinion based on my own personal experience.

As far as queue times go, you will most certainly lose players if they cannot regularly appear for scheduled BG nights. For instance, should real life conflict with their playtime opportunities. So, queues will definitely have an impact in those instances.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Ohai]

Just so we're clear, not once have I said that the games immediately lost value or even when the brackets began to die out. I never provided a time-frame. So, you've kind of interpreted that on your own. The OP asked why they are currently dead, not about the months following 3.2. Today, they are pretty dead. I offered reasons and an opinion based on today's status of the fore mentioned brackets. Personal opinion based on my own personal experience.

As far as queue times go, you will most certainly lose players if they cannot regularly appear for scheduled BG nights. For instance, should real life conflict with their playtime opportunities. So, queues will definitely have an impact in those instances.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well, the exp to BGs started it,

Not really. Like I indicated, exp to BGs INCREASED game and arena qualities, and forced the players still interested into one concentrated battlegroup. Yes, in the overall HALF DECADE scheme of things the number of players available in the pool was dropped, but the people filling those holes were leveling quest green wearing idiots. They did not contribute to the enjoyment of the 29s games I was in, and I'd argue that I wouldn't trade the 1-3 years I played 29s with ONLY twinks for a continued bracket right now in the state it was in pre 3.2. Some might disagree.

followed by the resilience changes for some brackets.

Negligible, in 29s. I'm speaking of 29s because this thread specifically asks about them, in the 25-29 bracket section of TI

They made it difficult to get games and then made those games less enjoyable. So the few games that would pop at 29, 39, 49 became not so much fun anymore.

This just isn't true. It made games more infrequent, but it made them higher quality.

Balance changes and issues at 39/49, contributed a decent amount.

Can't comment, only played 39s a bit.

I don't know why I'm taking the bait. You clearly never had any experience playing 29s post-3.2, so you can't actually speak to what the quality of games over the 3-4 year span was. Luckily for you, you didn't give a timetable, so your points are all hilariously wrong yet slightly technically valid!

 

[Cinderella]

Not really. Like I indicated, exp to BGs INCREASED game and arena qualities, and forced the players still interested into one concentrated battlegroup. Yes, in the overall HALF DECADE scheme of things the number of players available in the pool was dropped, but the people filling those holes were leveling quest green wearing idiots. They did not contribute to the enjoyment of the 29s games I was in, and I'd argue that I wouldn't trade the 1-3 years I played 29s with ONLY twinks for a continued bracket right now in the state it was in pre 3.2. Some might disagree.


Negligible, in 29s. I'm speaking of 29s because this thread specifically asks about them, in the 25-29 bracket section of TI


This just isn't true. It made games more infrequent, but it made them higher quality.


Can't comment, only played 39s a bit.

I don't know why I'm taking the bait. You clearly never had any experience playing 29s post-3.2, so you can't actually speak to what the quality of games over the 3-4 year span was. Luckily for you, you didn't give a timetable, so your points are all hilariously wrong yet slightly technically valid!

The quality of the players representative in the games without a doubt increased. For those who sought greater competition it was definitely a good thing. On the other hand, twinks were also just a way to dick around and enjoy yourself in low level BGs. Sure you'd have that premade to deal with from time to time and it'd suck to get camped for X number of BGs, but being the underdog was enjoyable too sometimes. With that greater competitive nature also came players whose only purpose/desire was to compete. I've come across plenty of people whom I enjoy playing with but don't entirely like their attitude. Simply because they take it too seriously or they have been cold to people who were underperforming.

(Reiterating what you said, because I'm in agreement here.) Pre 3.2, I hardly premaded/communicated with as many players as I did following 3.2 and on arranged BG nights. Less players forced those dedicated/interested enough into a huge awareness shift that there WAS other twinks out there who shared their same desires(if you weren't already apart of a community).

Quality of games is a matter of opinion, entirely. It really depends on what specifically about those games either catered to or bugged you. I know you may not trade this time period for the time before 3.2, but others might. Some of my fondest memories are from before resilience, before 3.2, and before heirlooms even. There's things I'd give and take from both time periods. I would love to have to find a BiS piece of gear for every slot. Cause pet projects are incredibly entertaining to me. I miss rocking Leather Epaulets on a Ret and going glass cannon just cause the Str and Crit was so great. Just cause it was fun. On the other hand, heirlooms are awesome in that I don't have to dig as much for gear anymore, with the limited time I have to play these days. But, if I had to dig, I'd do so without discouragement.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Cinderella]

I'd argue Talent Tree Reworks have also aided in putting the brackets in their current states. I've had friends who have become frustrated with the nerfs/buffs to either their class/spec or certain classes/specs that it's driven them to stop playing a character entirely. Class/Spec Viability at certain levels has swayed in huge ways. Both good and bad. For instance, classes whom now receive certain abilities later in their leveling. I was bummed Combustion was taken away from earlier level Fire Mages. If I were a class and entirely dedicated to it for years, that suddenly became obsolete in a given twink bracket, I might feel discouraged to even play in the bracket anymore. That's just me personally, a more resilient player might find a way to "make it work" even with the knowing that their class has lost useful or effectiveness.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Jadyne]

You two are using different definitions of "enjoyable". Games with high average skill level are usually more competitive, which is one form of enjoyment. But if those players are arrogant jerks, or even simply have more arrogant jerks than before, they can become less enjoyable in a different way.

And ultimately, I think we all have to agree that if you start a trend of excluding people, you run the risk of excluding so many that you no longer get to play anyway.

 

[Sbdaddy]

<3 glad to see that you're okay. you just vanished one day and tmaster said you had irl issues, it had me worried. how have you been man? are you going to play again? if you do, add me on btag domperignon#1147.

Alive and well. I don't know. I'd really have to read up on the changes, then make time during the week before I came back. I'll definitely hit you up if I do. Funny, I just decided to look up "29s" in google and found this. Checking out the Pantheon kickstarter got me thinking about gaming again.

Say hi to everybody for me.

 

[soskanky]

Not really. Like I indicated, exp to BGs INCREASED game and arena qualities, and forced the players still interested into one concentrated battlegroup. Yes, in the overall HALF DECADE scheme of things the number of players available in the pool was dropped, but the people filling those holes were leveling quest green wearing idiots. They did not contribute to the enjoyment of the 29s games I was in, and I'd argue that I wouldn't trade the 1-3 years I played 29s with ONLY twinks for a continued bracket right now in the state it was in pre 3.2. Some might disagree.


Negligible, in 29s. I'm speaking of 29s because this thread specifically asks about them, in the 25-29 bracket section of TI


This just isn't true. It made games more infrequent, but it made them higher quality.


Can't comment, only played 39s a bit.

I don't know why I'm taking the bait. You clearly never had any experience playing 29s post-3.2, so you can't actually speak to what the quality of games over the 3-4 year span was. Luckily for you, you didn't give a timetable, so your points are all hilariously wrong yet slightly technically valid!

He's obviously just trolling us. He stated he played 29s until Cata, he didn't. If he did it was only for a game or two. If you and I don't know who he is, he wasn't there and isn't qualified to respond to the OP. Therefore making him, lost.

Sent from my LGMS769 using Tapatalk

 

[Sbdaddy]

I'm a seccy biche

I'm a seccy biche

Skanky, Kunte, Ohai, are you still playing 29s? how bout wbern, nitro, phazz, PB, fal?